News
Solving the Tesla Semi truck conundrum: here’s what it might take
With the release of Tesla’s updated vision for the future, CEO Elon Musk included plenty of information that was both intriguing and light on details. From that, we will try to make a guess as to what Tesla’s plans are in reference to trucks and shed light on the many obstacles that the company will need to overcome before making its plans a reality.
The light details of Musk’s announcement is par for the course from Tesla and Co, which operates its marketing as much on hype and viral sharing as anything else. This is not a knock against the company, as most other firms would sacrifice virgins every Friday to see the same kind of unsolicited viral marketing that Tesla generates. One thing Elon has mastered is walking the fine line between being informative and forthcoming and being vague enough to cause rampant speculation.
In the company’s “Part Deux” plans for the future, a brief and almost passing mention of semi-trucks was made as a part of Tesla’s developments. Specifically, Must referred to “heavy-duty trucks” and called the idea a “Tesla Semi.” This can imply two things, but probably implies both. It could imply that Tesla plans to make a heavy-duty truck – which could mean a three-quarter ton pickup truck, a Class B heavy truck, or a large Class A freight-hauling truck. Or it can imply that Tesla plans to make a semi-truck only (aka “18 wheeler”). We believe it’s likely that they plan to do all of the above.
Currently, about 70 percent of the freight being moved around the United States is moved on semi-trucks in which a large tractor is attached to a separate trailer. These trucks typically operate at weights up to 80,000 pounds in vehicle, freight, and fuel. They are referred to as “Class A” trucks because the weight class requires an operator’s license of that type. Yet that is only one class of truck. And the typical over-the-road (OTR) truck we usually think of when talking about semi-trucks are just one slice of a large trucking pie.
Nearly 12,000 million tons of freight are hauled by trucks every year in the United States. A significant portion of that hauling is done by smaller trucks rather than large semi-trucks. Package carrying (van) trucks, dump trucks, refuse (garbage) trucks, and other specialized trucks are also common and actually make up a larger portion of the miles driven by heavy-duty trucking. Most of these vehicles have a gross weight of 26,000 pounds or more, by definition, so for our purposes here we will be excluding passenger-style heavy-duty pickups and the like. We are assuming that Musk is referring to freight hauling, given his statements.
With the plan to “cover the major forms of terrestrial transport” that Tesla put forth, we can assume that the company plans to design and potentially build heavy-duty trucks of all stripes. This is realistic given that major truck builders such as Paccar (Kenworth, Peterbilt), Volvo, Mack, etc. already do this. One basic design can be modified to match several needs, thus a single model Mack truck can be both an OTR freight puller and a dump truck with just a few changes to the drivetrain and chassis. Medium-duty trucks, such as package delivery (ala UPS, FedEx) box trucks can also be of a single design with multiple body options. Although the reality is a bit more complicated than this, the gist is that it is possible to design only a couple of vehicles and have them workable in most major truck markets. Knowing this, we will concentrate on the most difficult to achieve, over-the-road heavy-duty semi-trucks.
Knowing that, there are obstacles to overcome. The challenges of a Tesla pickup truck are a beginning, but with a heavy freight hauler, they become exponential. Here are some basic requirements for the biggest of these HD trucks:
- Power output similar to a large diesel engine, equalling roughly 450-550 horsepower and 800-1,200 pound-feet of torque. The amount of output depends heavily on the work to be done. A typical OTR truck, for example, falls in the lower end of this spectrum to maximize fuel efficiency while a typical off-road construction or heavy-load truck (logging and the like) will be at the higher end.
- An operating range of 600 miles per charge for OTR and about half that for more local use (construction, large trailer/freight delivery). Smaller trucks doing package deliveries could operate in the 150-mile range easily.
- The capability to haul as much or more freight than the current diesel-powered offerings do.
That last point is important. Getting a 600-mile range for a truck that can weigh up to 80,000 pounds, freight included, is pretty simple. Getting a 600-mile range for a truck and trailer weighing under 35,000 pounds is not as easy. It’s the old problem of more batteries equals more range, but also equals more weight.
There have been and are current attempts at electrifying semi-trucks, of course. Mostly in the medium-duty package delivery and trailer moving (non-transport) sectors. Solutions involving hydrogen fuel cells, battery-electrics, hydraulic hybrids, and more have been produced. Some did not do well (see Smith Transport) and some are going places (see Parker-Hannifin’s hydraulic hybrids). For the most part, battery-electric over-the-road trucks are seen as a pipe dream by most in the industry. There are good reasons for this. Not the least of which are the battery weight and range expectations of the trucks. Nevermind the likely long charging times required.
Walmart’s WAVE concept truck features an electric powertrain and lightweight carbon fiber trailer
Without getting too detailed, most OTR drivers expect to put in 600 or more miles per day in a solo run (one driver) and about 1,000 or so when team driving. Most fuel stops are 15-20 minutes and most trucks have a range of 700-1,000 miles when fitted with dual tanks (one on either side). Having enough lithium-ion batteries on board to do that is daunting. Especially given the high power outputs required to move 80,000 pounds worth of rig and freight.
There are solutions for this, of course. Since Musk devoted so much of his announcement to autonomous driving, we can assume the plan is to include that with trucking. Three possible ideas are:
Relaying. A truck takes a trailer 300-400 miles, swaps it with a trailer going back where it came from, and returns. The trailer swapped continues on with on another truck for another 300-400 miles, then another, and another.. Until its final destination and delivery. This is currently done with certain types of freight and these trucks often have shorter trailers and run them as doubles (one attached to another). Automating this might be a solution. At least for some types of freight.
Battery swapping. The truck drives for a certain range of miles, stops somewhere to have its emptied battery swapped with a full one, and continues. If done in 10-15 minutes and not more than twice a day, this would be realistic under the current trucking paradigm with a driver on board. When automated, the swaps could be as often as you’d like, though each stop means delays in shipment.
Partial electrification. This would be a truck which runs on electricity but has an on-board combustion generator. This is a potential solution, but is not likely to be on Tesla’s agenda.
Another option that should be considered, though it might not be what Tesla fans will want to hear: Musk may be planning on taking a standard semi-truck and automating it. In other words, the Tesla Semi could actually be an automation system, not an actual truck. At least in the beginning. Given the huge amount of technical obstacles, some of which may not be surmountable without combustion, this is a viable guess. At least for OTR trucks.
Any of these ideas or a combination are realistic for a Tesla Semi strategy in regards to OTR trucks. There are no shortage of plans (grandiose and otherwise) for transforming the trucking industry via electrification. Seeing Teslas will at least be interesting.
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
